JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 5522 of 2017 I.A. No. 5522 of 2017 is an application for condonation of delay of 221 days in filing this appeal. 2. Having gone through this application, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time. We accordingly condone the said delay. 3. I.A. No. 5522 of 2017 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 6846 of 2018 4. I.A. No. 6846 of 2018 is an application by which prayer has been made for staying the operation of the impugned order. We shall be addressing the appeal itself today and find no reason to independently address the stay petition. 5. I.A. No. 6846 of 2018 shall also stand disposed of. I.A. No. 10114 of 2018 6. I.A. No. 10114 of 2018 is in response to the order of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed on 17th July, 2018 in which it has been observed that the officer, who had filed the affidavit in this Letters Patent Appeal was working in collusion with the original writ-petitioner and for that reason no stay petition has been filed. Now, that the said petition has been filed, we accept the I.A. No. 10114 of 2018. 7. I.A. No. 10114 of 2018 shall also stands disposed of under these circumstances. L.P.A. No. 381 of 2017 8. The respondent-writ petitioner had approached this Court being aggrieved by deduction of Rs.1,96,064/- from the sum to be received by him as gratuity. The reason for such deduction, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-State was that the respondent had misappropriated the said sum of money while he was working as Headmaster of Janta High School, Khalari. Admitted position is that the respondent-writ petitioner superannuated on 31st December, 2013. The recovery order was set aside by the learned First Court mainly on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. There was no show cause issued to the respondent-writ petitioner before directing such recovery. There was no disciplinary or departmental proceedings either charging him with the offence of misappropriation of funds. 9. We do not find any flaw in the judgment and order of the learned First Court as direction for recovery from gratuity has civil consequence. Our notice has been drawn to Rule 43(b) of Jharkhand Pensions Rule, 2000 by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. We do not find any flaw in the judgment and order of the learned First Court as direction for recovery from gratuity has civil consequence. Our notice has been drawn to Rule 43(b) of Jharkhand Pensions Rule, 2000 by learned counsel for the appellant. Under the aforesaid provision even after superannuation departmental proceeding can be conducted under certain circumstances. But the authorities did not resort to this provision also in directing recovery of the aforesaid sum from gratuity of the writ petitioner. Though we sustain the order of the learned First Court so far as the order sets aside the recovery directions, we do not foreclose the option of the State Government to resort to the aforesaid Rule 43 (b), if they want to realise the alleged misappropriated sum, provided the conditions specified in the said rule is adhered to and there is finding against the writ petitioner on those allegations. 10. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms along with connected applications. No order as to costs.